[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
- Subject: Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
- From: Chuck Dale <>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:33:14 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20000624090608.A633@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 09:06:09AM -0700
- Mail-Followup-To: Chuck Dale <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <tHLkJC.A.gaB.VLOV5@murphy>
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
[coming in a little late on this thread]
> The poet said "no more difficult than LinuxDoc". Doesn't more tags
> required make it more difficult if you're doing it manually?
Plain text is simpler than DocBook. cf. RFCs. And?
DocBook provides expressive facilities that LinuxDoc doesn't. These are
facilities that should be used in any serious LDP document and as such
new authors will need them anyway. I'm not talking extremely difficult
concepts here, I'm talking XRefs and LiteralLayouts and Tables and
LinuxDoc is a dead end both with respect to the LDP and generally.
DocBook is very easy to learn. (It made sense immediately to me mainly
because it looks so similar to HTML. The installed base of HTML
Knowledge is rather high.)
In fact DocBook was so easy that I couldn't work out why Norm had to
go on for a few hundred pages in DocBook: TDG about it. A well
written 5 page tutorial was enough (i.e. Mark Galassi's DocBook
DocBook is King, Long Live DocBook. Exising LinuxDoc people, excellent.
New LinuxDoc people, please no.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org